tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88534845950914872242018-02-20T17:21:59.176-05:00Jaq ExaminesThe IssuesA heartland conservative's views on a few of the many staggering issues currently facing this nation. If I didn't change your mind, perhaps I at least caused you to consider a different point of view.
jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-29866939012583089392010-01-20T10:51:00.003-05:002010-01-20T10:55:44.540-05:00Why is it Impossible for Democrats to Learn from History?by j. wright 01/20/2010<br /><br />If you recently recovered from a coma or haven’t been paying attention to the national political scene of late, the commonwealth of Massachusetts just held a special election to permanently fill the seat in the United States Senate left open with the recent passing of liberal Democrat Senator Edward <em>(Ted)</em> Kennedy. Against all odds and contrary to past history, the voters in Massachusetts elected a conservative Republican to fill that seat.<br /><br />This from the Globe Newspapers: “Voter anxiety and resentment, building for months in a troubled economy, exploded like a match on dry kindling in the final days of the special election for US Senate. In arguably the most liberal state in the nation, a Republican - and a conservative one at that - won and will crash the Bay State’s all-Democratic delegation with a mandate to kill the health care overhaul pending in Congress.”<br /><br />Yes, it appears that the outcome of this special election has ramifications as far away as Washington, D.C. where several Democrat lawmakers who narrowly won elections in 2008 are having second thoughts about their future employment if they continue to blindly follow Obama/Reid/Pelosi off the cliff in support of this thing being hashed over behind closed doors called “health care reform.”<br /><br />The president and his Democrat legislative leaders have been unsuccessful in passing an extremely unpopular deficit busting bill for the past year while the national economy has sputtered and unemployment has climbed to near record levels. Because the Democrats couldn’t agree amongst themselves they decided their cover is to blame their failures on the Republicans, who weren’t invited to participate in the first place. Even the loss of the Democrat Senatorial hopeful in Massachusetts has been blamed on past Republican policies. They can’t be serious. Question: did they learn anything from this loss?<br /><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-48618219487023165692010-01-12T09:52:00.005-05:002010-01-12T10:13:42.879-05:00Health Care Reform? Great for Some; Crappy for Others!by J. Wright - 1/12/2010<br /><br />Quoting a CBS News poll in part, “President Obama's approval rating on handling health care is at an all-time low <snip>Just 36 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's handling of health care, according to the poll, conducted from Jan. 6 – 10. Fifty-four percent disapprove.”<br /><br />The Wall Street Journal opined last October ” …it may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.” Since then it has worsened. There is little voter consensus that the reforms under consideration represent the right approach. Only about one in five Americans thinks the reforms strike the right balance when it comes to expanding coverage, controlling costs and regulating insurance companies. Worse, congressional experts say 15 to 25 million Americans will still be left uninsured.<br /><br />Now the Democrats and some of their special interest supporters are again bickering about a thing labeled “Cadillac Insurance” policies, or blanket coverage that is the very best an individual can possibly enjoy in today’s market. The final bill now being considered would assess a huge tax on the value of those policies. Some special interest groups, financial supporters of Democrat lawmakers, are now discovering that they were not exempted, especially many of the millions of labor union members. They are furious and are making their displeasure known at some of the “Sweetheart” favoritism deals being handed out by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the expense of everyone else.<br /><br />Curious, why should a law grant some Americans special treatment and force others to pay higher costs? Constitutional scholars in opposition cite the 14th amendment guaranteeing “equal protection under the law.” In real reform, wouldn’t all Americans at the least be provided with improved health care coverage including lowered costs? This bill is allowing “better than equal protection” for a few several special interest groups. How constitutional is that?<br /><br /><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-70497086585418777072010-01-06T17:40:00.004-05:002010-01-09T12:26:17.535-05:00Republicans May Use USSC to Stop Health Care Reformby j. Wright - January 6, 2010<br /><br /><br />Imagine that, the Republicans using one of the liberal Democrats favorite secondary legislative bodies, the Courts, to stop health care reform in it's tracks.<br /><br /><br />In a recent blog here, I brought up the issue of “standing” as it applies to who can bring, or file a legal suit, with the United States Supreme Court. In order to bring a case before the Justices the plaintiff(s) or ones bringing suit, must have ''standing,'' because apparently the Court is not allowed to open a case on their own even if they suspect that a law, or portion of it, is unconstitutional.<br /><br /><br />By definition in part, “standing” means, ''...that in the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Additionally, the party suing must have ‘something to lose’ in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.''<br /><br /><br />Retired Judge Andrew Napolitano on FOX TV News recently confirmed that definition. Any citizen of the United States that will be harmed by the law, in this case, forced to buy health insurance under threat of financial fine or possible imprisonment, can bring suit because they have “standing.”<br /><br /><br />Judge Napolitano went on to say that if the pending health care reform legislation that is now being negotiated behind closed doors, not on C-Span as promised by Candidate Obama several times, is passed into law, a private citizen can seek relief and have the law deemed unconstitutional. Napolitano added that such action could also open the doors to looking at various other laws whose constitutionality has been questioned.<br /><br /><br />At this moment, Senator Orin Hatch, R-Utah, is putting this issue in motion. He can’t bring the suit personally but surely he will find an American citizen willing and able to do so. Time will tell.<br /><br />Hatch and other Senators are arguing that the bill’s requirement that most people buy insurance or face a penalty violates the Constitution’s ban on taking private property for public purpose without just compensation.<br /><br />Also, that a provision that could treat some insurance companies in Louisianna, Nebraska and Michigan different from others is a violation of the 14th Amendment's "equal protection'' clause.<br /><br />The AG from Texas just joined in claiming that Congress can't force citizens to buy anything, including health insurance, by saying it falls under the Interstate Commerce clause.<br /><br />Now it's getting serious, boy and girls. The AGs are using the "law of the land," our Constitution and the protections it affords the citizenry, to take a hard look at this mess the Democrats call reform.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-31194596795995739712010-01-04T18:39:00.001-05:002010-01-04T18:42:28.109-05:00"Standing..." You Either Have It Or You Don'tby j. Wright 1-4-2010<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br />.<br /></span>Every time I see the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned regarding the possible constitutionality of a new bill that Congress in its infinite wisdom has just passed into law, my head wants to explode; reason being, I don't fully understand the legality of the term ''standing.''<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Its my understanding that in order to bring a case before the SC Justices the plaintiff(s) or ones bringing suit, must have ''standing,'' because apparently the Court is not allowed to simply open a case on their own because of public sentiment or pressure, or even if they might think in their own minds that a law, or portion of it, is unconstitutional.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>If we examined all of the laws Congress has passed in the past decade or longer and examined them for constitutionality, I'd wager many of them wouldn't pass muster, but still they remain on the books. Why, because someone with ''standing'' didn't bother to make a federal case out of it? Or if someone did, a liberal federal judge in a lower court threw the case out before it reached the high court in Washington, D.C.<br /><br />Or, trial lawyers being what they are and whom they support (Read: the liberal left in our politcal family) are not necessarily apt to take up such mundane matters as constitutionality. But I digress.<br /><br />Definition of “standing” in part says, ''...that in the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is <em>(or will imminently be)</em> harmed by the law. Additionally, the party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.''<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>If Congress passes a law next week mandating that all Americans MUST buy health insurance or be fined, and if the individual doesn't pay that fine they will be penalized a much larger amount and jailed, isn't that ''having something to lose?'' Such as one's liberty? Or is our loss of liberty just a foregone conclusion nowadays? Maybe the key word up there is ''imminently.''<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Imminently we may find out.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-74162301820253092522009-12-31T13:34:00.003-05:002009-12-31T14:12:10.824-05:00Connect the Dots? What Dots?by j. wright - 12/31/2009<br /><br />Apparently before socialist leaning Democrat supporters begin to ravenously ''eat their own'' they must start nibbling around the edges as noted columnist Maureen Dowd did in a surprising column published recently in the NYT. For sure, Dowd injected her usual Bush Derangement Syndrome attacks, including attacks on former VP Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield, but by no means did she show any pity for President Obama and his pitiful national security team's recent actions.<br /><br />I wish she had gone farther. What are we watching today in our intelligence gathering circles? The same type of ''intelligence wall" that stifled two previous administrations with political infighting? Have we forgotten the "Jamie Gorelick Wall" that was in vogue under President Clinton barring anti-terror investigators from accessing information or communicating with other federal security agencies? The ''Wall'' that the 9/11 Commission eliminated and later set up guidelines to be implemented that would improve our future security?<br /><br />It's deja vu all over again, or close to it. Instead of being able to connect the dots, the current Obama Administration security heads are seemingly unable to recognize a dot when it's handed to them, and he is too busy playing golf to bother with an immediate acknowledgement of a near miss above our own soil. Instead we got unbelievable spin <em>(blather)</em> from Janet Napolitano, the current Secretary of Homeland Security about how well “the system” worked. The next day she reversed her self and said she was misunderstood; taken out of context. Had those remarks been uttered by Tom Ridge or Michael Chertoff, a couple of President Bush’s security chiefs, they would surely have been verbally tarred and feathered within hours by the national media and Democrat lawmakers and asked to submit their resignations immediately.<br /><br />How's that ''hope and change'' working today? Not so hot as far as our national security is concerned, but Al Queda seems to be thriving under it. Unfortunately until the 2012 elections we are stuck with this amateurish administrative Lost Gonzo posse that President Obama has trotted out to lead our country<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">/</span><br />Happy New Year readers, good riddance to 2009!<br /><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-80003272462236613972009-12-23T09:46:00.004-05:002009-12-23T10:14:50.130-05:00"What I Really Think of Health Care Reform"by j. wright - 12/23/2009<br /><br />My oldest daughter wrote recently asking my opinion of the proposed health care bills. The following was my answer.<br /><br />IF it were real health care reform, the end result would cover people that really can't afford insurance, many will still be uninsured; overall drug and treatment costs would decrease; physicians would not have to pay exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums; people could buy their insurance coverage anywhere they wished, they can't now; they would get income tax breaks for setting up a personal medical savings accounts. It seems that none of those things will take place.<br /><br />Origninally we were told that 47 million Americans were without health insurance converage. Then in a speech, President Obama lowered that number to 30 million. Now the experts are saying that after the passage of this bill, between 12 million and 25 million Americans will still NOT be insured. If that's the case, why are we bankrupting the country in the name of nationalized health care reform?<br /><br />It's reform all right; it just doesn't do anything to improve on the health provider system we have now, but we will succeed in indebting you and your future grandkids' grandkids for the rest of their lives with another government entitlement program. All this is going to be done with borrowed dollars; you do know that the federal government operates on taxes and foreign loans don't you? They don't have any money of their own. It's not Obama's "stash" as some would like to believe.<br /><br />Many current physicians have decided to retire early or leave the country when this is passed, and government estimates say that 30,000,000 additional people <em>(which doesn't add up)</em> will be added to the insurance roles. That means fewer doctors treating more people equals less than adequate medical care. Great, that’s something to look forward to.<br /><br />Obama says this bill will create jobs: right, at the federal level. One report I read said that 118 new federal agencies <em>(bureaucracies)</em> would be needed to run this debacle. Who pays their salary? Yes, the U.S. taxpayer. Like we need a bigger, growing government.<br /><br />Obama says this bill will lower the deficit. Not if you include the $240+ billion that is "off budget" in a separate bill called the "Doctor Fix." This is Medicare dollars that will be paid for services and for some reason, mostly to hoodwink the voters, is not inckuded in this health care reform bill.<br /><br />Then there's this pipe dream that Congress is going to "cut" $500 billion out of Medicare funding. When pigs fly, my dear. This $500 billion is a big part of the great savings and deficit reduction expectations that Obama and the Democrat lawmakers are crowing about. No Congress in our lifetime is ever going to "cut" Medicare funding. You can take that to the bank.<br /><br />Taxes will increase on about everything now to pay for this thing so you wage earners, if you are still employed, will have less money for food, clothing, mortgages, utility bills and my grandkids education. Forget anything else.<br /><br />Most outrageous, the lawmakers we elected think they can force Americans to buy something, even if they don't want it. And if they don't buy it, they can be fined. And if they don't pay the fine, thay can be penalized thousands of additional dollars and jailed. Welcome to the USSA. I've read the constitution and can't seem to find where that's mentioned. There's also some mention of "equal protection under the law" in the constitution. Some states are receving preferential treatment in order to garner needed Senate votes to pass this monstrosity. Time will tell if any court in the land has the will to stand up and declare this mess illegal.<br /><br />Does that answer your question, dear?<br /><br />Love, Dad~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-70370545558979886982009-12-16T10:27:00.007-05:002009-12-17T12:21:37.536-05:00Again, Pass Anything to Save Faceby j. wright 12/16/2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Journalist Jennifer Rubin, in a commentary.com article explains that the Democrats in the U.S. Senate are now at their wits end. Under mounting pressure they have dropped “another harebrained Harry Reid scheme.” But what’s next? The “ReidCare” public option idea has imploded along with adding more bodies to a failing Medicare including many who have reached 55 years of age. Ms. Rubin goes on, “ They need, because a few centrists insist on it, something that is semi-coherent and that actually might allow the Democrats to face the voters, who currently disfavor ObamaCare by a huge margin. What’s left after they take out the public option and the Medicare buy-in?”<br /><br />A Republican leadership aide explains what’s left: “$500 billion in Medicare cuts, $400 billion in tax increases, raises premiums, raises costs, onerous regulations, individual mandates, employer mandates, and expensive subsidies.” So what’s not to like? Well, just about everything, boys and girls. And this is reform?<br /><br />A Democrat leadership aide explained it another way, similar to a Willy Sutton bank robbery gone badly. They’re inside the bank surrounded outside by dozens of armed lawmen, their robbery plans went awry big time; they can leave the money and run, or shoot it out and take the money.<br /><br />Apparently it has come down to this in the Senate… pass anything to save face and maybe give President Obama a boost in his plummeting job approval numbers, all at the expense of 1/6 of our faltering economy. Or maybe they can all go home and clear their heads. When they return, maybe they can come up with a few inexpensive, discrete reforms that will have bipartisan support and not destroy our present system. Maybe? When pigs fly.<br /><br />Unfortunately I see the Democrats with their huge majority as more than willing to pass anything just to pass it, regardless of what the unintended consequences will be in the 2010 elections.<br /><br />What we are seeing now in the Senate are a few Dems and Harry Reid behind closed doors again, not on C-Span as Obama the transparency candidate espoused, working on a 'new' bill while the rest of the Senate is wasting time debating much of the old one. Whatever passes the Senate, if it does, will then go to a Joint Conference Meeting with the Democrat Leaders of the Pelosi led House and God only knows what will come from that. All of the recent talk about dropping the public option and the Medicare buy-in may suddenly be back in play, including abortion funding, and at what financial cost? The problem is after it leaves the Joint Conference Committee, it takes only 51 votes in the Senate to pass it. Look for a few Democrat Senators, who may be in jeopardy in the upcoming 2010 elections, to seek political refuge and vote against it. Call it CYA, that's all it is. <br /><br />Another problem, and a major problem at that, is that if this monstrosity is enacted it will be nearly impossible to rescind with Obama holding a veto pen, at least until the 2012 elections. If he is reelected in 2012 then we're really doomed. The America where many of us grew up will cease to exist.<br /><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-85900728884816313762009-11-23T15:56:00.003-05:002009-11-23T16:17:53.631-05:00"The High Costs of Dying..."by j. wright - 11/23/2009<br />.<br />Last Sunday I watched a portion of 60 Minutes on CBS-TV. Their first segment had to do with national health care. It began with an opening statistic <em>(whose validity some might question)</em> claiming $50 billion is expended annually to keep ailing seniors alive for an additional two months or so in their last days. Is the "do no harm" axiom now dependent on costs? Or on the sanctity of life? <br /><br />We all should remember, it’s still the PATIENT'S choice to linger in possible pain with the HOPE <em>(Remember that word? A favorite of many liberals)</em> that their condition might improve. Remember that liberal favorote; CHOICE? It's not up to the Doctor or the Government to decide. Not yet anyway<br /><br />CBS, as self-appointed experts in medicine and national economics, concluded in the case of extending a fellow human's life for an indeterminate length of time, that $50 billion dollars is obviously too much American capital to waste. We need to become more "cost effective."<br /><br />On October 19, Senate Democrat Majority Harry Reid stated almost sneeringly that Medical Tort Reform would save "only" $50 billion a year.<br /><br />On August 31, 2009 the NY Times said medical tort reform is moving to the fore of the health care debate, that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. Reid referred to it as a small fraction of the $2 trillion that health care reform would cost. Obviously a faux pas on Harry's part, one of those nasty unintended consequences of forgetting which lie to rely upon. His Senate bill claims to cost "only" $847 billion during the next ten years. Do the math... multiply $50 billion ten times: $500 billion. A small fraction, Harry?<br /><br />If Medical Tort Reform were put in place, how many fewer needless tests and costly medications would our current system push in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits? No, apparently it’s easier to expect ailing seniors to just die rather than to take potential income away from trial lawyers, cronies who contribute tons of money to the Democrat Party. Sleaze politics<br /><br />Is $50 Billion too much to spend on aging seniors or is it too little to save on overall health care? Decisions, decisions. It's still $50 billion every year. The Republican minority have insisted that any Health Care Reform include ways to save billions in Tort Reform. Harry Reid says no way. The Republicans also offered up eleven (11) amendments during the debate of these many bills, a,endments that would force the lawmakers to drop what they have now and be nsured like the rest of the country will be under their great plan. All eleven were nixed. These jokers are OUR employees, but who'd have guessed that?<br /><br />$50 billion is either a drop in the bucket or it’s a needless waste of money. It depends on where your values lie. My question is simple, why should U.S. government bureaucrats now get into the business of determining when the ailing should die, or live, and for how long?<br /><br />Proponents of the government plan say that many doctors feel that those final stabs at prolonging an uncomfortable life do more harm than good and not much good. I say it doesn't matter what the doctors or the government "feels" or concludes. If the patient is awake, lucid and can communicate their wishes, to either pull the plug or give it another try, it's their CHOICE.<br /><br />How much longer we will have the FREEDOM of CHOICE is debatable under this president and our current lawmakers. The lawmakers passed Medicare and Medicaid years ago to afford seniors some type of medical care... as usual, their numbers were way off the target, like ten times less than the actual costs when it paned out. Quite a mistake. Now the Democrat lawmakers, seeing that mistake, want to take away between s450 - s500 billion in payments to doctors and care providers, who subsequently will NOT accept Medicare patients, or will discover a way to cut their losses like rationing care. The elderly will be the ones left holding the bag.<br /><br />This new health care boondoggle will cause thousands of doctors to retire or move off shore; it will add millions of people that are now uninsured and still leave millions of Americans without coverage. Care and treatment will not improve, costs will increase. The deficit will expand. Our debts to foreign nations will increase as well. It will ultimately insure illegal aliens <em>(for their future votes following amnesty legislation)</em> and worst, it will use taxpayer money to fund voluntary abortions. Those are the bad things. It’s possible the good things that are included in the bill won’t justify the bad.<br /><br />What in hell are those lawmakers <em>(Democrats)</em> thinking? They seem all to willing to pass a really bad law instead of trying to improve what we have now.<br /><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-71196721123579584052009-11-19T11:19:00.004-05:002009-11-19T11:31:17.722-05:00Passing A Bad Bill is Better Than Not Passing Any?by j. wright - 11/19/2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Company, behind closed doors again, NOT in the glare of C-Span cameras for all the world to see <em>(as Candidate Obama promised)</em> finally introduced the Senate's version of nationalized health care/insurance overhaul that the CBO estimates will cost $849 billion for the first ten years. Of course the new taxes to pay for this program begin now. The benefits, or lack of same, of the new plan will go into effect for the taxpayers six or seven years down the road, AFTER the 2012 elections. After the first ten years, who knows what the cost will be, or if the country will be solvent enough to afford it?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />We've seen what happened to Medicare in the 25 years it has been in effect. It has exploded to ten times the cost of what was predicted by our "experts" in Washington. If "comprehensive health care reform" follows suit, our economy could totally collapse. There are areas where the goverenment should not involve itself <em>(Read: meddle) </em>and IMO, ths is one of them. Besides, its constitutionality is questionable, but who is examining at that?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">..</span><br />The nearly $250 billion <em>(1.4 trillion)</em> "Doctor fix,” a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform, is still off budget, not paid for and raising the deficit. The Wall Street Journal writes, “This doctor maneuver is such a cleverly dishonest solution to their many contradictory promises that we're surprised Democrats didn't think of it sooner.” Will President Obama look the other way and break another huge campaign promise and sign health care reform into law while knowing it will definitely increase the deficit?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .<br /></span>It should be interesting to see how he reacts after being taken "to the wood shed" by the Chinese over the ever expanding U.S. deficit, the incessant federal spending, and the threat of massive inflation in the future, which would place the billions of dollars the Chinese have 'invested' in the U.S. government in jeopardy.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The inmates are running the asylum and the Chinese recognize that. Too bad the MSM doesn't. They are too busy chasing former Governor Sarah Palin's skirt doing fact checks on her recent best selling book. Too bad someone from the Fourth Estate didn’t do as thorough a fact check on candidate Obama before the 2008 elections.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-37387532709450364272009-11-11T13:15:00.003-05:002009-11-19T11:19:33.880-05:00President Obama says Health Care Overhaul Isn't About Himby j. wright - 11/09/2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>In August of this year, according to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA),<em> “A Democrat congressman last week told (him) after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.‘ “<br /></em><span style="color:#ffffff;">. </span><br />That president is none other than Barack H. Obama. The very same who stood in front of his vaunted teleprompter and asserted at various times that, <em>“…this (health care reform) isn’t about me.”<br /></em><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The same <em>“ruin my presidency”</em> line was reportedly used as leverage on some of the reluctant Democrat Representatives in the House last week when President Obama caucused with them pushing for passage of Speaker Pelosi’s 2,000+ page bill.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>If it isn’t about Obama, who is it about? It isn’t about the majority of the taxpayers who will have to eventually pay for this boondoggle called reform. Since when does the legacy of one president take precedence over the welfare of the 307 million Americans to whom he swore an oath?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Poll after poll taken in recent weeks have shown a majority of Americans are not in favor of a government takeover of our current health provider system. Yes, changes must be implemented but not at the expense of destroying what is good about we have now.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Speaker Pelosi stood on the steps of the nation’s capitol and pronounced, <em>“…we have listened to the people.”</em> The same ordinary people she insulted and derided following the Tea Party protests and Town Hall meetings last summer?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />In my opinion, we have a self-serving, arrogant, out-of-control administration and legislative branch where elected officials totally ignore the wishes of their employers, the taxpayers. This is not the America where I grew up.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-79632418180456367082009-11-05T11:13:00.002-05:002009-11-05T11:23:11.590-05:00Socialized Health-Care Is Already on the Booksby j. wright - 11/05/2009
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span>
<br />In a televised interview recently, Dr. David Janda, orthopedic surgeon, University of Michigan, was featured as a guest. Janda, an author as well, is not a supporter of Obamacare in any fashion.
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span>
<br />In his interview he indicated that half of the proposed government take-over of our health care system is already law, "slipped" into the previous Stimulus package (H.R. 1 EH, The American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009) and will soon take effect. You remember that bill: $787 billion in borrowed dollars, more than 1,000 pages mostly unread. Find it on the Internet at: <span style="color:#3333ff;">http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt</span>
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .
<br /></span>Tragically, he indicated, no one from either party objected to the health provisions “slipped in” without discussion, which affects every one of us <em>(see pages 445, 454, 479).</em> Our medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. A new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure our doctors are doing what the federal government <em>(bureaucrats)</em> deem appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to have the remaining doctors who haven’t left the profession give up autonomy and learn to operate less like solo practitioners. Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span>
<br /><span style="color:#000000;">He also implied that if Obamacare passes into law, that 45% of the nation's current physicians will "retire" from practice. Add that fact to another, that more than 30 million new insured will be expecting treatment and we will have a total mess. <ore>
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span>
<br />The previous “Stimulus” bill, now law, generated yet another bureaucracy, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research <em>(see pages 190-192).</em> Its goal is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they allegedly drive up costs. Mercy! Talk about achieving the lowest common denominator!
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span>
<br />Unfortunately, the elderly will be the hardest hit. As Democrat Tom Daschle wrote in his recent book, ”Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.
<br /></span>Keep in mind this is already the law of the land. “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.” Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?
<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span>
<br />jaq~
<br />JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-65594013888367187002009-10-22T13:21:00.001-04:002009-10-23T10:35:23.836-04:00Two Examples of Deceit...by j. wright October 22, 2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br />.<br /></span>In my construction supervision days, there was a time when the boss asked my Project Manager and me to each generate an estimate of a major renovation of an existing home in the exclusive Rancho Santa Fe community north of San Diego. It took us a couple of days and when we were finished, both of us had estimated a cost of slightly more than $700,000.<br /><br />With estimates in hand we ventured into the boss’s office where he perused our numbers and began to line out various portions. We asked, “Are those items being deleted from the project?”<br /><br />“No,” he answered, “Your numbers are too high.”<br /><br />When the Senate Majority leader in Washington, D.C. attempted to remove about $250 billion dollars of future Medicare payments to doctors from the total cost of the proposed health care plan and pay for it “off budget” (Read: add it to the annual deficit.) the first thing I thought of was what my former employer attempted to create: a nice looking price, (a “low-ball”) but in the end, the home owner had to face the real cost of more than $700,000 as we had originally estimated.<br /><br />I don’t know what most folks would call a stunt like that, but the word deceitful comes to my mind. The same applies to what the Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attempted. And to the credit of twelve Senators from his own party plus the opposing Republicans, his attempt failed miserably. Maybe that’s a harbinger of things to come if and when a nationalized health care bill comes up for a vote.<br /><br />No doubt our current health provider system needs improving. Beginning with a simpler plan we can afford financially seems more in order than to venture into the unknown and create additional unacceptable debt.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />One such idea comes from the Coalition to Protect Patients Rights, an organization that opposes congressional efforts to revamp the health-care system, the group opposes all the legislation being proposed in the House and the Senate. The bills avoid giving patients control of their health care.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The coalition’s stance includes:<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">. </span><br />1. allowing people to buy insurance across state lines,<br />2. advocating for health savings accounts,<br />3. opposing the public option of government-run insurance and<br />4. giving patients vouchers and tax credits to purchase insurance.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The group also wants a revamping of medical malpractice suit filings that they say adds billions to health-care costs annually. Quoting one of the doctors involved, “What we want is a system where the patient controls their own destiny.”<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Baby steps... not a total overhaul of our existing system.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .<br /></span>jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-61295701685722954052009-10-19T11:29:00.001-04:002009-10-19T11:31:59.260-04:00So Much For Transparency..."j. wright - 10/19/2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />On August 21, 2008, Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a televised campaign stop that as president, when it came down to deciding on health care reform that it would be done out in the open with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, doctors, hospital and insurance company reps all gathered around a big table and televised on C-Span for the entire country to see. Transparency.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Apparently Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Democrat Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel didn’t see that speech. Either that or Barack Obama’s words mean nothing.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Those individuals, sans any Republicans, Independents, doctors, nurses, insurance execs etc. are meeting behind closed doors, not on C-Span, to decide what 1/6 of the nation’s total economy and 300,000,000 Americans health provider system will look like for generations to come. I’d be fearful of buying a used car from them let alone trust them to destroy our current health care system and replace it with one that looks like it will offer less to more, cost trillions we don’t have and still leave millions of Americans uninsured. This power grab is called progress? Only in Washington, D.C.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .<br /></span>What ever happened to the “transparency” we heard so much about during the campaign? So far it seems to be missing in the Obama Administration; the administration that was purportedly based on “Change, change you can believe in.” So much for words, which candidate Obama said many times, have meaning. Really?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .</span><br />When the politicians listed above finish their work, their product will then be revised again in a Joint Conference Committee; mostly Democrats behind closed doors before being voted on by both Houses. No televised hearings, definitely no “transparency.” Duped againJWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-12718673749855174192009-10-08T15:01:00.003-04:002009-10-08T15:11:44.211-04:00Debates Won: Wars Lost...by j. wright - October 8, 2009<br /><br /><br />In a recent Wall Street Journal article, former Bush Administration White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove indicated, “The GOP is Winning the Health-Care Debate.”<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Allow me to take on a former tennis great John McEnroe in-your-face attitude for a second: ''Winning the Debate? But Losing the War? You Can’t be Serious!” Great... if that's a victory please excuse me whilst my head explodes!<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The Marxist idiots many of us voted into office are going to pass their idea of national health reform regardless of rapidly growing public disatisfaction and the possible political consequences. That's supposed to be a win for the nation?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Once in place, especially with Obama's veto pen until 2012, their idea of health reform will never be repealed and eventually we'll be ''enjoying'' a single payer monstrosity similar, maybe worse, than that in the UK and Canada.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Its becoming more and more plain that these power guzzling Marxists have no conscience when they are in the majority, and in typical liberal fashion, have this inane belief that they and they alone know what is best for the rest of us, the uneducated inferior types.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Sure, many of them will suffer at the polls in 2010 but it’s a small price to pay for their cause, as again, they will have forced their will upon us.To put it bluntly, we've had it. And I'd dearly love to be wrong.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Additionally, even with the so-called pass the CBO just gave Senator Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee's version of national health care; the numbers are a joke.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Out of that expected cost of $829-billion spread over ten years is a huge reduction in Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals of almost half; $404 billion. It's doubtful that will happen. Too many politicians see the folly in screwing with the seniors.The additional proposed taxes and fees will certainly take effect but not enough to offset the ''savings'' in lower Medicare expenses.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Then there's the so-called savings to be garnered by eliminating Medicare ''fraud and waste'' to the tune of $500 billion? LMAO! As if any Congress ever discovered fraud and waste and did anything.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />So let's pretend this plan of theirs works for ten years. After that there is no allotment of money on any one's table to maintain this monster entitlement plan. Like now, Medicare/Medicaid is costing ten times what was planned at its inception 25 or so years ago. Imagine what our kids and their kid's kids will be facing in a couple of decades.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The radical leftists have been compared to as an army of ants. Close, only worse. The ants aren't so much interested in control and power as they are in survival.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />They will accept a loss of the House in 2010 as long as they pass nationalized health care ''reform'' now.Like good socialists, they love their martyrs and are a patient lot. Sooner or later they would regain the House and control of the taxpayer dollars.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Personally, I don't see a miracle in the making that will prevent them from passing Obamacare or whatever it’s called. And the arrogant One's ego trip will be nauseating to behold when that takes place.<br /><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-69808811834880609852009-10-03T11:55:00.002-04:002009-10-03T12:01:56.227-04:00Now Even the Lawmakers Can't Understand What They Propose...by j. wright - October 3, 2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /><br />In the wee hours of the morning last Friday, the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Senator Max Baucus, (D-Montana) completed the mark up of their proposed health care reform bill. The committee has been working with what is described as a “conceptual” version, or one prepared in common sense language. It had been given in part to the their staffers, lawyers, who converted it to legislative language before an upcoming floor vote.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />This is a portion of a quote from Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.): <em>“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life. We, we write in this committee and legislate with plain English and I think most of us can understand most of that. When you get into the legislative language, Senator Conrad actually read some of it, several pages of it, the other day and I don’t think anybody had a clue--including people who have served on this committee for decades--what he was talking about.”<br /></em><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />There was more but perhaps you get the gist. The Senate Finance Committee is the same committee that voted down a proposal to have the bill placed on the Internet 72 hours before an up-down vote takes place on the floor. Senator John F. Kerry, (D-Mass.) indicated it would be too confusing. Was he implying that the average American is too stupid to understand words?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />What I don’t understand is how the Obama Administration and the leftist Democrat legislators react to national polls concerning the public’s seeming disfavor with the Afghanistan conflict, yet totally ignore more conclusive polls concerning widespread opposition to major health care overhaul. Am I one of those average Americans Senator Kerry was speaking about? Maybe so but I do understand words.JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-17591795333433254012009-09-28T11:34:00.002-04:002009-09-28T11:38:22.487-04:00Further Shredding of the ConstitutionJ Wright - 09/28/09<br /><br /> After reading a piece in Politico.com, not a radical right-wing web site by any measure, I'm convinced beyond any doubt that the present Obama administration and its fellow lawmakers in D.C. are totally out of their minds. The problem? If this version of Obamacare passes into law and you don't buy mandated health insurance you can be fined, or jailed.<br /><br /> Politico.com published: "Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.<br /><br /> Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /> The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the (Senate Finance Committee's) markup. This is the Committee that is headed by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Originally he had a “gang of six:” himself, two other Democrat Senators plus three Republican Senators, holed up for several weeks attempting to hammer out what he referred to as a “bipartisan” health care reform package.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /> Apparently those Republicans, including a very liberal Olympia Snowe, concluded they were included only for “show”. When none of their suggestions were accepted by Baucus and the others, they walked. Now Senator Baucus is holding full committee hearings in an attempt to quickly mark up a questionable reform plan that up to now has had about 500 additional amendments added to it. The old adage about the definition of a camel comes to mind: a horse designed by a committee.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /> Yes, we need health care/treatment reform; but we don’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. And I totally question the constitutionality of mandating, or forcing citizens to buy anything.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-48677317193867466332009-09-25T15:07:00.003-04:002009-09-25T15:14:25.887-04:00Now He's Thrown Israel Under the Bus!by j. wright -09/25/2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />What was it that coke-head Sherlock Holmes always said to Dr. Watson ? "Elementary..."<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />In the spirit of sarcasm, <em>IF </em>Israel had not been designated as a sovereign nation in 1948 then there would be no 'mideast problem' today.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .<br /></span><em>IF</em> Hitler had been better at ridding the world of the 'infestation of Jews' during WW II: same conclusion. <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .</span><br />As former Dallas QB "Dandy" Don Meredith once told sports columnist/announcer Howard Cosell, "If 'ifs and buts' were candy and nuts, what a Merry Christmas we'd all have."<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Going back to the current but incessant, never ending 'mideast problem,' <em>IF </em>Jimmy Carter had developed a better pair of gonads as an adolescent, the mideast would be a far more stable place than it is today. All he can do now, in attempting to cover his skinny, saddle-ass, is blame Israel for everything bad that's ever happened and continue to kiss Muslim ass.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .<br /></span>Apparently President Obama feels that same way. I'm still fuming over his bigoted speech last week at the United Nations general assembly railing at Israel. If I were Bibi Netanyahu, I'd flat knock him on his skinny ass for interferring in the governance of their country. Sure, it would violate untold political decorum but would send a definite message. :) <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .</span><br />Originally, Obama said the 'new' mideast peace negotiations would commence with no set pre-conditions, then in his usual psuedo-intelligent chin jutting Il Duce fashion, proceeded to lay out several conditions that are, and will be, totally unacceptable to the Israelis. Talk about arrogance. Whose side is he on anyway? I guess we all know now.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">. </span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-1764900422884607092009-09-04T11:10:00.003-04:002009-09-04T11:18:04.647-04:00Why More Pro-health Care Reform Speeches?by j wright<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /> At the risk of sounding anti-Obamacare, whatever that is, its difficult for me to understand why President Obama, in the face of devastating public opinion to the contrary, insists that a total overhaul of our health care system is necessary. Why, if I wanted to replace my kitchen cabinetry and counter tops, would I begin by demolishing the entire house?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> .</span><br /> Now President Obama is set to make a high-level pitch for health care reform before a joint session of Congress. Many of those members, who if brave enough, recently stood before their constituents and felt the heat of an aroused public, who by all national polls are well satisfied enough with the current system that it doesn’t need to be totally destroyed and eventually taken over and operated by the federal government.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /> President Obama will be preaching to the choir, at least that’s how it appears to me. The more he speaks, the faster his job approval ratings plummet, and they have, like a stone. All of his “face time” on national television has done nothing for health reforms and has definitely affected his popularity. One definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Maybe listening to the people is in order.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /> Certainly, his failure to get consensus on health care reform can’t be blamed totally on the Republicans; they have been watching the congressional Democrats doing a good enough job of that. The House Democrats want a “public option.” <em>(Government run health care; eventually eliminating private insurance providers.) </em>The Senate Democrats say “No” to public option. The Republicans are left out of that stalemate all together. Many of their ideas are constructive and bear consideration but the special interests the Democrats favor prohibit even a look-see. No wonder much of the country is upset.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-78650388337990450242009-08-22T10:23:00.001-04:002009-08-22T10:26:32.058-04:00Take Care of Federal Deficit Later?by j. wright<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Friday gave us a “Good news, bad news” scenario: the good news was that President Obama would be vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard and out of the public spotlight briefly. The bad news is that his administration released a revised report showing the growing federal spending deficit would explode to an outrageous $9 trillion during the next ten years instead of the $7.1 trillion they had projected after taking office. Contrary to the Obama Administration’s economic experts, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had predicted a $9.1 trillion deficit and it appears they had the right numbers all along.<br /><br />So for the next ten years our federal government will go along, happily spending $900 billion more dollars annually than it takes in. I wish I could run my household finances like that. Maybe not, come to think of it. The really bad news is this $9 trillion expected deficit increase adds not only to the burgeoning $11.7 trillion National Debt, it doesn’t include a single dime for the cost of national health/insurance reform… if somehow passed, would be tacked on.<br /><br />On May 24, 2009 President Obama, as quoted in the NY Post said during a lengthy interview referring to the country, " We are out of money, were broke.” He also added, as I remember, that our government’s current spending habits were “unsustainable.” So what is his solution? Break his campaign promise and increase taxes on every remaining wage earner in order to cover our various near bankrupt social programs? Or begin to reform all of them, cut wasteful fraud and spending and get our financial house in order before taking on anything new?<br /><br />Still mired in a deepening recession, and with approximately 30 million currently out of work, a huge amount of social program dollars will never be collected. Scarlett O’Hara might suggest that we “…take care of it tomorrow.”<br /><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-15885410669283729362009-08-14T11:08:00.003-04:002009-08-14T11:27:16.919-04:00Get Ready for Socialized Medicineby jwright - August 12, 2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The national health care reform proposals being generated in Washington and introduced in Town Hall meetings across the land are not receiving the warm welcome that many politicians wanted or expected. Many ordinary folks in attendance appear to be beyond angry with their lawmakers, who in fact were “hired” at the voting booths to represent but seem hell-bent on passing some sort of radical bill anyway. One in essence that “tears down the house to remodel the bathroom.” Apparently the lawmakers are more fearful of their leadership’s ability to destroy them than they are of the voters to boot them from office. How else could they all utter the identical pro-reform lines over and over?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The bill most discussed, of several being generated, is HR3200, a 1,018 page complicated monstrosity that if passed could result in 30,000 pages rivaling our IRS code. That after the government bureaucrat’s finish fine-tuning and defining it into a total remake of our current medical care system; one that isn’t broken but could definitely use some major changes.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The Democrats in power have rejected out-of-hand many changes proposed by Republicans including tort reform. A<span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span>good part of the escalating costs of medical care is passed on by the increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance. Anti-tort reform trial lawyers are a major financial contributor to the Democrats. No one wants to close that spigot.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;"> NO one wants to close that spigot..</span><br />Another tidbit the Democrats refuse to consider is to allow the various independent insurance companies to sell their wares across state lines. For example, if you live in New York state today and wish to purchase lesser cost insurance in Delaware, you can't. Why?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Now the Town Hall attendees in disagreement with health care reform are accused of being a mob, organized rabble-rousers, etc. because they want their voices heard. So the opponents of free speech send in their own ‘mob’ of organized thugs, even to the point of beating a conservative black man who was handing out “Don’t Tread On Me” outside one of the meetings. Add to that, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her political toy-boy, Steny Hoyer, recently labeled public dissent as “un-American.” Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves! <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />One line I overheard last week sticks with me: ''They <em>(the lawmakers)</em> didn't come to listen, they came to teach.'' Good grief! I know all I need to know about any of their various health care reform plans, or as Obama now calls it, health 'insurance' reform. What I know is I don't want it! And for all of his so-called oratoical presence, President Obama can't explain it short of lying about what it includes. <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />What I fear most is that come hell-or-high water, these elected idiots, as I mentioned before, are more fearful of Obama's ability to destroy them politically than they are of their constituents booting them out of office. They will dutifully do the bidding of their leader, their Messiah, and pass this or a similar abomination anyway, regardless of massive public sentiment to the contrary.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Then what? Wait for the 2010 mid-terms, elect Republican or conservative Independents and attempt to rescind the entire mess with a president holding a veto pen? How much damage will have taken place in the interim? <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />I sincerely hope that those good folks who were duped into voting for ''change'' are choking on their fears right now.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-50836640503703273052009-08-03T10:44:00.002-04:002009-08-03T10:53:26.586-04:00What is in the Democrats drinking water?by j wright - August 3, 2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />A friend of a different political persuasion questioned what is in my drinking water that causes me to post here? Similarly I’d ask what’s in the water of many of our elected officials in Washington when they utter some of the things they do?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />President Obama began it with his statement that although he didn’t have the facts about an arrest made in Cambridge MA went on to assert, “The police acted stupidly.” This was at the end of a press conference covering his health care reform proposals.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />On that topic, Senate Majority Harry Reid, D-NV, blamed the media for “making up” the August 1st health legislation deadline. That flying in the face of several video clips showing Obama, Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, pushing incessantly for a pre-recess deadline.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Pelosi later publically accused our health insurance providers of being the “villains” in this process. <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Later, Representative Charlie Rangell, D-NY described our current health care system as “terrible.” Terrible? I’m well satisfied with mine, and other than the annual cost increases of Medicare, my insurance premiums have not increased since 2001.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Fellow Michigander John Conyers, Democrat, House Chairman, Committee of the Judiciary, questioned why lawmakers should bother to read 1,000+ page bills before passing them because it would take two days and two lawyers to explain it. Unbelievable!<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Then Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts, House Financial Services Chairman was caught on video saying the “public option” that Obama wants to include is the best way to achieve single payer coverage <em>(such as Canada and the UK have).</em> That would ultimately result in the rationing or outright refusal of some aspects of medical care, especially for senior citizens.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />This contentious, omnibus health care plan is being hashed over in several proposed bills; none of which the national polls find appealing to the informed voters. None of which many Republicans are involved in in or supporting. We need to reform our health system, perhaps starting with tort reform in order to get law suits agaionst doctors and hospitals uinder control BUT that would hinder the trial lawyers ability to make tons of money, AND the trial lawyers are one big fat special interest that supports the Democrat Party.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Another move would be to allow insurance cmpanies to sell their services across state lines, increasng competition and lowering costrs to the nsured. Why this isn't in effect already is a mystery to me.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-51968422951210968092009-07-22T10:06:00.002-04:002009-07-22T10:09:44.220-04:00My 2-centsby jwright<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Comedian Steven Wright once said, "If you get a penny for your thoughts, why do we always put our '2-cents' in?"<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Real Politics columnist John Stossel writes on the very confusing issue of national health care reform: “It's crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15% of the U.S. economy. It's even crazier to do it by August. Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, ‘to reinvent the nation's health care system’. Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.”<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Stossel gives the congressional legislators credit for being mere mortals. I’d liken them more to being arrogant snake oil salesmen with blown dried hair and good quality suits. There was a saying that the definition of an expert is anyone more than 25 miles from home. This appears to be the case of the lawmakers who are attempting to follow President Obama’s orders and overhaul <em>(or possibly ruin?)</em> our national health care system.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>From the liberal NY Times: “Three of the five Congressional committees working on legislation to reinvent the nation’s health care system delivered bills this week along the lines proposed by President Obama. Instead of celebrating their success, many Democrats were apprehensive, nervous and defensive.” That’s understandable. Much of what they are proposing is so bizarre that even the unwashed, average American can understand it. Recent national polls reflect it’s not to their liking.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The lawmakers can’t predict it’s eventual cost in new taxes, or if it actually improves the system or replaces it with what Canada and the UK currently “enjoy.” Still, President Obama is pressing hard for something now. Too often, and unfortunately, what a bill contains is secondary to its passing. This controversial bill will affect everyone, forever. Why the rush? Do it right.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />Information sources:<br />http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/22/arrogance_97561.html<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=3&amp;hpJWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-23106804606619922722009-07-17T22:22:00.001-04:002009-07-17T22:27:24.445-04:00Is Your Home Really Your Castle?by j. wright<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />So you think “your home is your castle?” Not if the U.S. Senate passes the questionable “climate” bill the House of Representatives passed last week on a 219-212 vote. It legislates mandatory home inspections by federal regulators <em>(Big Brother?)</em> who will demand to audit every aspect of your home under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The inspectors shall request copies of utility bills, or permission to obtain copies from your utility companies and use them to produce an estimate of generalized heating and cooling end-uses; and will inspect for R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation; type of windows: glazing type and frame material; type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system, ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation; type of foundation if crawl, basement, or slab; the age and efficiency of your hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs and the number of water faucets, showerheads just to name a few areas.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Does this mandatory intervention violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing protection from unreasonable search and seizure? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">..</span><br />This legislation was fueled on the automatic assumption that global warming is taking place and it attributes to rising CO2 levels, despite the fact that this is a highly contentious question and is being rejected by more and more international scientists, but who cares? This government knows best even when it ignores the Constitution. Your choice: federal fines, or do you spend dollars you can’t spare to upgrade?<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-91069661333790319632009-07-08T12:31:00.002-04:002009-07-08T12:34:35.992-04:00Step Two in Totalitarianism - Mandatory Home Inspectionsby jwright-July 8, 2009<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>So you think “your home is your castle?” Maybe not if the U.S. Senate actually passes the questionable “climate” bill the House of Representatives passed last week on a 219-212 vote. It legislates mandatory home inspections by federal government regulators <em>(Big Brother?)</em> who will demand to audit every aspect of your home under the threat of substantial and repeated fines if their visits are denied or their demands not satisfied.<br /><br />The inspectors shall request copies of utility bills, or permission to obtain copies from your utility companies and use them to produce an estimate of generalized end-uses (heating, and cooling); and then will inspect for R-values of wall/ceiling/floor insulation; Square footage and approximate age of home; Type of windows: glazing type(s) and frame material(s); Type, model number, and location of heating/cooling system(s); Type of ductwork, location and R-value of duct insulation, and any indications of previous duct sealing; Type of foundation if crawl, basement, or slab; Checklist of common air-leakage sites; Estimated age and efficiency of major appliances such as dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, washers and dryers; Number and type of hardwired light fixtures and screw-in bulbs in portable lamps suitable for energy efficient re-lamping; Visual indications of condensation; Presence and location of exhaust fans, and whether they are vented outdoors; Number and type of water faucets, showerheads; and Presence and type(s) of combustion equipment; blocked chimney, and corroded or missing vent connections<br /><br />This legislation was fueled on the automatic assumption that global warming is taking place and it attributes to rising CO2 levels, despite the fact that this is a highly contentious question and is being rejected by more and more international scientists, but who cares? Government knows best. If your home doesn’t pass muster, what then? Federal fines, or do you spend dollars you can’t spare to upgrade?<br /><br /><br />jaq~<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>Information source: http://www.infowars.com/bureaucrats-will-carry-out-mandatory-home-inspections-under-climate-bill/JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8853484595091487224.post-77194023662544699802009-07-01T14:44:00.003-04:002009-07-01T14:48:33.948-04:00Step One in Totalitarianism - Cap and Tradeby jwright<br /><br /><br /><br />HEADLINE: Dollar Falls Most in Month as China Urges New Reserve Currency. That was the June 27 headline at Bloomberg.com, published by the Bloomberg Professional, a service terminal that provides real-time financial news, market data, and analysis. <br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.<br /></span>The U.S. Dollar declined the most against the Euro and dropped in value versus the Yen after China challenged Obamanomics and repeated its call for a new global currency.<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />What does the decline in value of the dollar mean for you and me? In a capsule, according to the Gerson Lehman Group, its devaluation means higher prices for our every day goods and commodities, as they are expected to continue to rise along with the value of energy, oil, precious and base metals. Fuel costs will increase, and consumer credit will shrink while inflation increases (punishing those like me and others on a fixed income).<br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />The opponents of the president’s ominous Cap-and-Trade bill that passed recently in the U.S. House of Representatives said much the same. In the opinion of millions it’s a new, unfair tax on energy consumption that will essentially increase the costs of everything we use. Slowdowns in corporate production will ensue. American businesses relocating offshore would result, subsequently followed with the loss of American jobs.<br /><br />Some politicians say the bill makes sense because if energy costs rise, consumption will be less. The nebulous reasoning is that we’ll then lessen our dependence on foreign oil and somehow change our planet’s climate. Is this like rearranging the chairs in a restaurant’s public smoking section while the growing smoke cloud lingers everywhere? With China and India’s growth, the pollution on the planet increases while our cost of living increases and our standard of living erodes, the economy continues to founder, and worse, the central federal government attains more power. We are the losers.<br /><br />Sources: <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/">www.bloomberg.com</a>; <a href="http://www.glgroup.com/">www.glgroup.com/</a><br /><span style="color:#ffffff;">.</span><br />jaq~JWright-http://www.blogger.com/profile/04518887331086772998noreply@blogger.com0